Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.


New opensees models for simulating nonlinear flexural and coupled shear-
flexural behavior of RC walls and columns

Article  in  Computers & Structures · November 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.10.010


15 2,049

3 authors:

Kristijan Kolozvari Kutay Orakcal

California State University, Fullerton Bogazici University


John W. Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles


Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Designed and Constructed Prior to Enforcement of the Recent Seismic Design Codes View project

Utilizing Remote Sensing to Assess the Implication of Tall Building Performance on the Resilience of Urban Centers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristijan Kolozvari on 18 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

New opensees models for simulating nonlinear flexural and coupled

shear-flexural behavior of RC walls and columns
Kristijan Kolozvari a,⇑, Kutay Orakcal b, John W. Wallace c
California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes new model elements and material constitutive relationships implemented by the
Received 14 March 2017 authors into the widely-used open-source computational platform OpenSees (Open System for
Accepted 17 October 2017 Earthquake Engineering Simulation), aimed to enhance current nonlinear analysis and response assess-
Available online 3 November 2017
ment capabilities for reinforced concrete (RC) walls and columns. Classes added to the existing
OpenSees library include: (1) the Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Model (MVLEM) element with uncou-
Keywords: pled axial/flexural and shear responses, (2) the Shear-Flexure-Interaction-Multiple-Vertical-Line-Eleme
Reinforced concrete structural walls and
nt-Model (SFI-MVLEM) element with coupled axial/flexural and shear responses, (3) the Fixed-Strut-
Analytical nonlinear modeling
Angle-Model (FSAM), which is a two-dimensional constitutive model for RC panel elements, (4) an
Shear behavior improved uniaxial constitutive model for concrete, and (5) an improved uniaxial constitutive model
Flexural behavior for reinforcing steel. Representative validation studies are also presented, where the analytical model
Shear-flexure interaction predictions are compared with results of quasi-static lateral load tests on selected RC column and wall
OpenSees specimens. Response comparisons reveal that the implemented models capture, with reasonable accu-
Earthquake engineering racy, the experimentally-observed behavior of the test specimens investigated. Based on the comparisons
presented, model capabilities are assessed and potential model improvements are identified.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction bridge columns). Their role is to provide sufficient lateral strength

and stiffness to minimize nonlinear behavior and limit lateral dis-
1.1. Background and aim placements during service-level earthquakes, as well as to provide
sufficient nonlinear deformation capacity (ductility) during a sev-
With implementation of performance-based methodologies in ere earthquake. Given the crucial role of walls and columns in
modern seismic design codes and assessment guidelines, detailed the seismic performance of RC structural systems, it is essential
modeling and simulation of the nonlinear seismic behavior of rein- that analytical models that are capable of capturing their impor-
forced concrete (RC) structural systems has recently gained much tant response characteristics are available, for either design of
importance. While modeling of the linear elastic response charac- new structures or performance assessment of existing structures.
teristics of systems with complex geometry is no longer a signifi- The most commonly-used modeling approach for nonlinear
cant design challenge, reliable modeling approaches for robust response analysis of RC structures involves adaptation of fiber-
simulation of the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of RC structural based models, with uncoupled axial/flexural and shear behavior,
members are still needed. for simulating the hysteretic behavior of walls and columns. Using
RC structural walls and columns are often used as the primary a plastic hinge model is typically deemed sufficient for beams, con-
vertical structural members for resisting lateral loads imposed by sidering that axial loads in beams are negligible. In a fiber-based
wind or earthquakes on buildings (e.g., core wall systems, wall- model, nonlinear axial/flexural response of a wall or column is sim-
frame dual systems, special moment frames) and bridges (e.g., ulated using a series of uniaxial elements (or fibers), the behavior
of which is based on stress-strain relations for concrete and rein-
forcing steel (or simplified force-deformation relations), along with
⇑ Corresponding author. the plane-sections-remain-plane assumption. Shear behavior of
E-mail addresses: kkolozvari@fullerton.edu (K. Kolozvari), kutay.orakcal@boun. the member is typically accounted for by using a horizontal spring
edu.tr (K. Orakcal), wallacej@ucla.edu (J.W. Wallace).

0045-7949/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 247

in the model element, with a specified shear force versus deforma- the normal stresses developing in concrete (in parallel and perpen-
tion (backbone) relation. Fiber models have been implemented dicular directions to cracks) and the shear stresses developing
into various research-oriented (e.g., OpenSees, [21]) and along the cracks, based on the constitutive stress-strain relation-
commercially-available computer programs (e.g., PERFORM-3D, ships adopted in the model (versus use of a pre-defined shear back-
CSI; [35]), and have been widely used to simulate the nonlinear bone relation). It has been shown that this model is capable of
behavior of RC walls in particular. Studies that compare model capturing successfully the overall load-deformation behavior, non-
and experimental results (e.g., [1,25]) show that conventional fiber linear shear behavior, coupling of nonlinear flexural and shear
models provide reasonably accurate predictions of the flexural deformations, as well as local responses (e.g., strains and rotations)
response of walls. However, the inability of fiber models to account for RC walls that experience significant SFI behavior under
for the interaction (coupling) between axial/flexural and shear reversed cyclic loading conditions [12].
behavior is a significant drawback, as studies have shown that Despite the significant number of analytical modeling
uncoupled models tend to underestimate compressive strains in approaches available in the literature, only a small number of
concrete at the boundary regions of even relatively slender walls model formulations are implemented in computational tools
with flexure-controlled responses [25], and overestimate the lat- (commercial and open-source) available to the broader engineer-
eral load capacity of walls with moderate aspect ratios [9]. Further- ing and research community. One of the most widely-used com-
more, using an uncoupled fiber model requires pre-definition of an putational platforms in structural/earthquake engineering is the
ad-hoc shear force versus deformation relation, which may intro- Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees,
duce bias in the analysis results. For example, Kolozvari and [21]). OpenSees is an open-source software that includes a wide
Wallace [10] showed that uncoupled wall models with linear- range of features (e.g., model elements, materials models, solution
elastic shear force-deformation relationship with 0.5GAg (com- strategies, etc.) that can be used to conduct nonlinear analysis of
monly adopted approach) tend to overestimate wall shear force structural components and systems under earthquake ground
demand by approximately 30% and underestimate interestory drift motions. Although OpenSees incorporates an extensive library of
by approximately 50% within the plastic hinge region compared to model elements, only a few options are available for modeling of
coupled models. RC walls and columns, where the displacement-based beam-
In terms of flexural and shear deformation contributions to column element that follows a fiber-based formulation with
overall response and failure mode, RC walls and columns are typ- uncoupled axial/flexural and shear responses is being the most
ically characterized by their shear-span-to-depth (M/Vl) ratio. commonly-used. However, the computational stability (conver-
Squat members – especially walls – with M/Vl ratios less than gence), efficiency (rate of convergence), and accuracy of analytical
approximately 1.0–1.5, generally exhibit shear-dominant behavior, results obtained using the displacement-based beam-column ele-
whereas well-designed slender members with aspect ratios greater ment have been shown to be sensitive to choice of number of inte-
than 2.5–3.0 demonstrate flexure-controlled responses. The lateral gration points used along the element length [3,37]. Other models
load behavior of walls and columns with intermediate M/Vl ratios available in OpenSees for simulation of RC walls and columns are
of 1.0–3.0 is generally influenced by both nonlinear flexural and flexure-shear interaction displacement-based beam-column ele-
shear deformations. A number of experimental results obtained ment proposed by Massone et al. [18], strut-and-tie-based model
from tests on RC walls (e.g., [19,34,38,39]) as well as columns implemented by Panagiotou et al. [28], and shell element pro-
(e.g., [31–33]) have shown that nonlinear flexural and shear defor- posed by Lu et al. [14]. The modeling approach implemented by
mations occur simultaneously, and shear deformations can be Massone et al. [18] is capable of simulating monotonic responses
influential on the response even when the overall response or fail- only. A strut-and-tie (truss) approach developed by Panagiotou
ure mode of the member is not shear-governed. This indicates et al. [28] is capable of capturing SFI, however, due to overlapping
inherent coupling between nonlinear flexural and shear responses areas of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal concrete struts in the
in RC members, which is commonly referred to as shear-flexure model, as well as the use of pre-define angles of concrete struts,
interaction (SFI). It has been observed experimentally that SFI achieving accurate displacement responses over a broad range of
can lead to increased compressive strain demands on walls and response amplitudes and wall configurations is a challenge. The
columns, especially with intermediate M/Vl ratios, resulting in shell element implemented by Lu et al. [14] is a relatively recent
reduced strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity compared model based on a finite element formulation (not a macroscopic
to behavior under pure bending. Therefore, it is important that model), which has not been extensively validated and is intended
analytical models that can simulate this experimentally-observed to be used for RC walls only. In addition, material constitutive
SFI behavior in RC members are available to researchers and models available in OpenSees, which are used to represent the
engineers. hysteretic stress versus strain behavior of concrete and reinforcing
A number of modeling approaches, with various levels of steel, incorporate certain simplifications and occasional inconsis-
sophistication and capabilities that incorporate SFI behavior in tencies in their formulation. In particular, existing uniaxial mate-
RC walls (e.g., [6,7,11,18,20,28,30]) and columns (e.g., [4,44]), can rial models for concrete are characterized with simplified
be found in the literature. An effective approach to capture SFI in hysteretic rules, which represent material behavior in a crude
RC members using a fiber-based model formulation was first pro- manner and do not allow capturing of cyclic concrete behavior
posed by Petrangeli et al. [30]. Massone et al. [18] adopted this accurately (e.g., no gradual gap closure). Also, the most
approach for analysis of RC walls under monotonic loading, commonly-used uniaxial material model for reinforcing steel is
whereas Kolozvari et al. [11] extended it to address reversed cyclic subject to stress overshooting upon reloading after partial strain
loading conditions, both using different constitutive modeling reversal, which can lead to unreasonable predictions of hysteretic
approaches to represent the behavior of concrete under combined loops of structural components subjected to cyclic or dynamic
normal and shear stresses. In the analytical model proposed by loading. Finally, a reliable and efficient two-dimensional constitu-
Kolozvari et al. [11], the uniaxial fibers in a fiber-based model for- tive model for representing the behavior of RC panel (membrane)
mulation are replaced with RC panels, the biaxial behavior of elements under plane-stress conditions is not available. Therefore,
which is described using a two-dimensional constitutive model there is still a considerable need for development and implemen-
with a fixed-crack-angle approach. Thereby, the effect of shear tation of improved analytical models (model elements and mate-
deformations on the strains in concrete is directly incorporated, rial constitutive models) to enhance current OpenSees
and shear stresses developing in the model element evolve with simulation capabilities associated with the nonlinear behavior of
248 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

RC structures, which in-turn will advance analytical capabilities of improved uniaxial material models for concrete and reinforcing
researchers and engineers worldwide. steel.

1.2. Research objective and scope 2.1. Flexural model element (MVLEM)

A research project was initiated to implement a number of new The model element implemented in OpenSees for simulation of
features for nonlinear analysis of RC structural walls and columns flexure-dominated behavior of RC members is the two-
into the computational platform OpenSees, in order to address the dimensional Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Model (MVLEM;
shortcomings mentioned previously, as well as to validate the [26,43]. The axial/flexural response of the element is simulated
models using existing experimental data obtained from tests on by a series of uniaxial macro-fibers connected to rigid beams at
wall and column specimens. This paper describes the analytical the top and bottom levels, as illustrated in Fig. 2a. The relative
models implemented by the authors into OpenSees, including rotation between top and bottom boundaries of the model element
new model elements and material constitutive models, and pro- is concentrated at the center of rotation defined at a relative height
vides examples of model applications to nonlinear analysis of RC ch (Fig. 2a); a value of c ¼ 0:4 is commonly used [25,43]. Distribu-
walls and columns. tion of curvature is assumed to be constant along the element
The newly-implemented OpenSees classes described include height.
the following model elements and constitutive models (Fig. 1): Based on displacements at the element degrees of freedom
(1) MVLEM: macroscopic fiber-based element with uncoupled flex- fDg ¼ f D1 D2 . . . D6 gT (Fig. 2a), axial deformations of the m
ural and shear responses, (2) SFI-MVLEM: macroscopic fiber-based micro-fibers fuy g are calculated as:
element with shear-flexure interaction behavior, (3) FSAM: two- 8 9 2 38 9
dimensional (plane-stress) constitutive model for RC panel ele- > uy;1 > 0 1 x1 0 1 x1 > D1 >
> >
> >
> > >
< uy;2 = 6 7< =
ments, (4) ConcreteCM: hysteretic uniaxial material (stress- 6 0 1 x2 0 1 7 D2
¼6 7 ð1Þ
strain) model for concrete, and (5) SteelMPF: hysteretic uniaxial >
> : >
> 4: : : : : : 5>> : >
: >
; >
: > ;
material model for reinforcing steel. OpenSees implementation of uy;m 0 1 xm 0 1 xm D6
the model elements and material models included not only devel-
opment of source codes, but also preparation of detailed user doc- The average normal strain in y-direction for j-th RC macro-fiber ey;j
umentation (e.g., manuals, examples, input files), all of which is is then calculated by dividing the axial deformation in y-direction
available through the OpenSees Wiki Page as well as the PEER uy;j by the model element height h:
report by Kolozvari et al. [11].
An overview of model formulations is presented, followed by ey;j ¼ ð2Þ
comparison of the analytical results predicted by the models with
experimentally-measured responses obtained for various RC wall Finally, the resulting axial stresses in the macro-fibers are obtained
and column specimens characterized with a range of properties based on the fiber axial strains ey;j and the corresponding uniaxial
(e.g., cross-sections, reinforcing ratios, axial loads, etc.) for assess- constitutive material models used for concrete and reinforcing
ment of model capabilities and shortcomings. steel.
Shear response of the model element is simulated by a horizon-
2. Description of the analytical models tal spring placed at the relative height ch (Fig. 2a). Deformation of
the shear spring uSh is calculated from the element degrees of free-
This section provides descriptions of the analytical models dom as:
implemented in OpenSees as a part of this research effort, includ- uSh ¼ f 1 0 c  h 1 0 ð1  cÞ  h gfDg ð3Þ
ing model elements for simulation of flexure-dominated and
shear-flexure-interaction responses of RC members, as well as a The resulting spring shear force F Sh is then obtained based on the
plane-stress constitutive model for reinforced concrete, and spring deformation uSh and the implemented constitutive model

Fig. 1. New OpenSees classes.

K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 249

Fig. 2. Implemented model elements: (a) MVLEM element and (b) SFI-MVLEM element.

for wall shear behavior, typically described by an ad-hoc X
m X
m X

force-deformation rule (e.g., linear-elastic behavior or an origin- fF e;int gD ¼ F Sh ;  F y;j ; F Sh ch  F y;j xj ; F Sh ; F y;j ;
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
oriented hysteresis model with a nonlinear backbone relationship). )T
Since axial/flexural and shear responses are described indepen- X

dently, there is no coupling between these responses in the MVLEM F Sh ð1  cÞh þ F y;j xj ð6Þ
The stiffness properties and force-deformation relationships of The MVLEM element implemented in Opensees is conceptually
the uniaxial elements are derived based on hysteretic stress- similar to the widely-used displacement-based beam-column ele-
strain relationships adopted for concrete and reinforcing steel, ment (DB-BC, [37]), with the following two simplifications: (1) the
and the tributary area assigned to each uniaxial element. For a MVLEM uses average strains and stresses developing within each
specified set of displacement components at the six nodal degrees macro-fiber over the element height to obtain the deformations
of freedom {D} of a MVLEM element, the element stiffness matrix and forces in the corresponding fiber, whereas the DB-BC element
relative to these degrees of freedom is: evaluates the strain-stress relationship at a number of integration
2 3 points over the element height and obtains deformations and
Xm X m X m
forces by integration of strains and stresses and (2) the distribution
6 ky;j  ky;j xj ky;j xj 7
6 j¼1 7 of wall curvature over the height of each model element is
6 j¼1 j¼1
6 Xm X m 7 assumed to be uniform, as opposed to linear distribution of curva-
T 6
6 2 2 2 7
½K e D ¼ ½b  6 k Sh c h þ k x2
y;j j kSh cð1  cÞh  k x
y;j j
7  ½b
ture assumed between element nodes of the DB-BC element formu-
6 j¼1 j¼1 7 lation. These simplifications minimize convergence problems
6 7
6 X m 7 encountered in using the beam-column element, which results in
4 symm: 2 2
kSh ð1  cÞ h þ 25
ky;j xj
improved numerical stability and computational efficiency of the
MVLEM over the DB-BC element. Based on comparison of the
MVLEM and the DB-BC model results presented in Section 3.3.2,
analysis times using the MVLEM are approximately 90% and 60%
where kSh is the stiffness of the horizontal spring in the model ele- of the analysis times using the DB-BC model with four and eight
ment, ky;j is the stiffness of the j-th uniaxial macro-fiber, and xj is its integration points, respectively. However, because of its simplifica-
distance to the central axis of the element. Matrix ½b denotes the tion of constant curvature assumed along element height, the
geometric transformation matrix converting the six element MVLEM may provide less accurate predictions of local deformation
degrees of freedom {D} to the element deformations of extension, responses (i.e., strains, rotations). Nevertheless, this can be
relative rotation at the bottom, and relative rotation at the top of improved by using several elements over the anticipated plastic
each wall element, and it is given as: hinge region (or the entire height) of the member. The MVLEM is
2 3 compatible with all uniaxial material models available in OpenSees
0 1 0 0 1 0 for concrete and reinforcing steel, and the accuracy of the analyti-
6 7
½b ¼ 4 1=h 0 1 1=h 0 0 5 ð5Þ cal response predictions (e.g., strain predictions, shape of the hys-
1=h 0 0 1=h 0 1 teretic loops, etc.) is directly related to the level of detail of the
constitutive material model selected for the analysis.

The internal (resisting) force vector of a MVLEM element is

assembled from the axial forces in the vertical directions F y;j of 2.2. Shear-flexure-interaction model element (SFI-MVLEM)
all element macro-fibers, which are calculated based on the axial
stresses developing in concrete and reinforcing steel within each The Shear-Flexure-Interaction Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element
macro-fiber as well as their corresponding tributary areas, together Model implemented in OpenSees (SFI-MVLEM [12,13]) captures
with the shear force developing in the horizontal spring F Sh . The interaction between axial/flexural and shear responses in RC
resisting (internal) force vector of a single MVLEM element can structural members under cyclic loading. The SFI-MVLEM element
be expressed as: incorporates a two-dimensional constitutive RC panel behavior
250 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

described by the Fixed-Strut-Angle-Model (FSAM; [27,41]), into where ð@ rx =@ ex Þj , ð@ ry =@ ey Þj and ð@ sxy =@ cxy Þj are the diagonal
the fiber-based formulation of the MVLEM (Fig. 2b), with RC pan- terms of the stiffness matrix defined for each RC panel element,
els replacing its uniaxial macro-fibers. The FSAM represents a bj is the panel width in horizontal x-direction, h is the model ele-
two-dimensional (plane-stress) constitutive relationship that ment height in vertical y-direction, t is the wall thickness, and
relates the strain field imposed on a RC panel (ex , ey , and cxy ) to Ax;j and Ay;j are tributary areas of the vertical and horizontal faces
the resultant of the stresses developing in concrete and reinforc- of j-th RC panel element. The total shear stiffness of a SFI-MVLEM
ing steel, converted into smeared stresses in concrete (rx , ry , and element (kSh ) is calculated as a sum of the shear stiffness of all
sxy ). Therefore, coupling between axial and shear modes of behav- RC panels within one model element. The SFI-MVLEM element stiff-
ior (normal and shear stresses) is captured at each RC panel ness matrix is then assembled as a combination of the element
(macro-fiber) level, which further allows capturing of the interac- stiffness sub-matrix ½K e D , which corresponds to the six degrees
tion between flexural and shear responses at the SFI-MVLEM ele- of freedom D at the top and the bottom of the model element (sim-
ment level. ilar to MVLEM stiffness matrix given in Eq. (4)), and the sub-matrix
Similarly to the original MVLEM formulation, axial strains in ½K e d corresponding to the m extensional degrees of freedom {d}.
wall longitudinal direction on each RC panel ey;j are calculated from Since the six degrees of freedom {D} are kinematically indepen-
the deformations at the element degrees of freedom {D} (Fig. 2b) dent from extensional degrees of freedom {d} (Fig. 2b), the element
according Eqs. (1) and (2). Element shear deformation uSh is stiffness matrix becomes a block matrix consisting two sub-
obtained from Eq. (3) and converted to shear strain on each RC matrices ½K e D and ½K e d , expressed as:
panel element cxy;j , assuming uniform shear strain distribution 2 3
across the wall cross-section. Since shear stresses developing in ½K e D j ½0
6 7
the model element evolve with the normal stresses developing in ½K e  ¼ 4    5 ð10Þ
concrete and the shear stresses developing along the cracks (based ½0 j ½K e d
on the behavior of the constitutive RC panel elements and the
stress-strain relationships adopted for the materials), the SFI- As well, given that the horizontal (extensional) degrees of free-
MVLEM does not incorporate a shear spring or require definition dom at each macro-fiber {d} are also independent from each other,
of a shear backbone relation, contrary to an uncoupled fiber- the element stiffness matrix relative to these degrees of freedom is
based model formulation (e.g., MVLEM or the displacement-based a diagonal matrix consisting of horizontal stiffness values for each
beam-column element). RC panel macro-fiber kx;j (Eq. (7)) as:
Axial strains in the horizontal direction of each RC panel ele- ½K e d ¼ diag ½ kx;1 kx;2 : : kx;m m;m ð11Þ
ment ex;j are obtained assuming that the resultant horizontal stres-
ses associated with steel and concrete (i.e., resultant smeared Similarly, the corresponding internal force vector of the model
stress on concrete, rx) is equal to zero. This assumption is incorpo- element can be expressed as:
rated in the SFI-MVLEM formulation by introducing additional 8 9
degrees of freedom defined in the horizontal direction for each < fF e;int gD >
> =
fF e;int g ¼  ð12Þ
macro-fiber of the model element fdg ¼ f d1 d2 . . . dm gT >
: >
(Fig. 2b), which are kinematically independent from the six fF e;int gd
degrees of freedom at the top and bottom boundaries of the ele-
where the sub-vector fF e;int gD is the force vector relative to the
ment {D}. Therefore, the coupling between axial and shear
degrees of freedom {D} derived from the resulting axial forces in
responses of each macro-fiber is achieved through the constitutive
the RC panel elements in the longitudinal direction of the model
two-dimensional RC panel behavior. In OpenSees, these degrees of
element (Fy,j), together with the element shear force FSh, calculated
freedom {d} are assigned to nodes that are generated and added to
in the same manner as for the original MVLEM formulation (Eq. (6)).
the analysis domain automatically (i.e., without user intervention),
Since a shear spring does not exist in the SFI-MVLEM model element
and are located at the centroid of each RC panel within the model
formulation, the internal shear force FSh is obtained as the sum of
element. The degrees of freedom {d} are treated as external degrees
the resulting shear forces Fxy,j developing in all of the RC panel ele-
of freedom that contribute to the element tangent stiffness matrix
ments within the model element. Sub-vector fF e;int gd is the element
and the resisting force vector, and their values are updated at each
force vector corresponding to the m extensional degrees of freedom
iteration and analysis/time step. Therefore, the total number of
{d}, and is given by:
degrees of freedom of each SFI-MVLEM element is increased to 6
+ m (where m is the number of macro-fibers in the model element), fF e;int gd ¼ f F x;1 F x;2
: : : F x;m g ; ð13Þ
compared to 6 in the original MVLEM formulation, which leads to
considerable decrease in computational efficiency (e.g., run-time) where Fx,j (j = 1, . . . , m) are the resultant horizontal forces (with
of the SFI-MVLEM, compared to the uncoupled MVLEM. For any pre- zero magnitude at equilibrium) corresponding to the extensional
scribed strain field (ex;j , ey;j and cxy;j ), the axial stiffness in x and y degrees of freedom dj.
directions (kx;j and ky;j ) and the shear stiffness (kSh;j ) of the j-th RC Previous studies (e.g., [18]) have shown that that three major
panel element are: assumptions implemented in the SFI-MVLEM formulation (i.e.,
assumptions of zero resultant horizontal stress, uniform shear strain
          distribution, and the plane-sections-remain-plane) are reasonable
@F x @F x @ rx @ ex @ rx Ax;j for cantilever walls with aspect ratios greater than 1.0, suggesting
kx;j ¼ ¼   ¼  ð7Þ
@ux j @ rx j @ ex j @ux j @ ex j bj that application of the proposed modeling approach is suitable for
          both slender and moderate-aspect-ratio walls and columns.
@F y @F y @ ry @ ey @ ry Ay;j
ky;j ¼ ¼   ¼  ð8Þ
@uy j @ ry j @ ey j @u y j @ ey j h 2.3. Plane-stress constitutive model for reinforced concrete (FSAM)

    !   !
@F H @F H @ sxy @ cxy @ sxy Ay;j The Fixed-Strut-Angle Model (FSAM, [27], Fig. 3), which is,
kSh;j ¼ ¼   ¼  ð9Þ implemented in OpenSees as an nDMaterial model, is a two-
@uH j @ sxy j @ cxy @uH j @ cxy h
j j dimensional (plane-stress) constitutive relationship for simulating
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 251

Fig. 3. Behavior and modeling parameters of the constitutive RC panel model FSAM: (a) Strain-stress field, (b) concrete biaxial behavior, (c) concrete shear aggregate interlock,
(d) steel behavior, and (e) dowel action on reinforcement.

the behavior of RC panel elements under generalized, in-plane, (macro-fibers) used in the formulation SFI-MVLEM element
reversed-cyclic loading conditions. The constitutive behavior of described in the previous section.
the FSAM is defined via hysteretic uniaxial stress-strain relation-
ships for concrete (Fig. 3b – along crack directions) and for rein- 2.4. Uniaxial constitutive model for concrete (ConcreteCM)
forcing steel (Fig. 3d – along reinforcement directions). Although
the concrete stress–strain relationship adopted in the FSAM is fun- The uniaxial hysteretic stress-strain relationship implemented
damentally uniaxial in nature, it also incorporates biaxial softening in OpenSees for concrete is the constitutive model developed by
effects including compression softening [42] and hysteretic biaxial Chang and Mander [2], which is a refined, rule-based, generalized,
damage [17]. In the baseline formulation of the FSAM [41], shear and non-dimensional constitutive model that allows detailed cali-
aggregate interlock along cracks and dowel action on reinforcing bration of the monotonic and hysteretic model parameters and can
steel bars are neglected. In this case, crack directions coincide with simulate the hysteretic behavior of both confined and unconfined,
principal stress directions in concrete, zero shear stress develops ordinary and high-strength concrete, in both cyclic compression
along the cracks, and the principal stress directions in concrete and tension. The model addresses important behavioral features,
(along which the biaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete is such as continuous hysteretic behavior under cyclic compression
applied) are assumed to be fixed along the crack (strut) directions, and tension, progressive stiffness degradation associated with
while the principal strain directions rotate with the applied strain smooth unloading and reloading curves at increasing strain values,
field. Before formation of the first crack in concrete, the FSAM for- and gradual crack closure effects.
mulation assumes that the principal strain directions on the panel The compression envelope curve of the model by Chang and
element coincide with the principal stress directions in concrete. Mander [2] (Fig. 4a) is defined by the initial tangent slope Ec,
The first crack in concrete develops in perpendicular direction to the peak coordinate (e’c, f’c), a parameter r from Tsai [40] equation
the principal tensile strain, implying formation of the first ‘‘fixed defining the shape of the envelope curve, and a parameter e cr to
strut”, when the principal tensile strain first exceeds the cracking define normalized (with respect to e’c) strain where the envelope
strain value of concrete. The second crack is assumed to develop curve starts following a straight line, until zero compressive
in perpendicular direction to the first crack, when the tensile strain stress is reached at the spalling strain, esp. The tension envelope
in the first strut direction exceeds the concrete cracking strain, curve is analogous to that of the compression envelope and is
resulting in formation of the second ‘‘fixed strut”. During further defined using a similar set of envelope parameters for tension;
loading stages, these two ‘‘fixed struts” in concrete work in either however, the tension envelope curve is shifted to a new origin
tension or compression, depending on the strain field applied on that is based on the unloading strain from the compression envel-
individual the panel element. ope (Fig. 4a).
On top of this baseline formulation of the FSAM, which origi- In order to define the hysteretic properties of the model, statis-
nally assumes zero shear stress along crack surfaces [41], various tical regression analyses were performed by Chang and Mander [2]
behavioral models can be implemented in the FSAM for represent- on an extensive experimental database. Based on the regression
ing shear aggregate interlock behavior along cracks and dowel analyses, empirical relations were developed for key hysteretic
action on reinforcing steel bars. In the present FSAM formulation parameters, such as those for secant stiffness (Esec) and plastic stiff-
implemented in OpenSees, a friction-based elasto-plastic constitu- ness (Epl) upon unloading from, and stress and strain offsets (Df
tive model for shear aggregate interlock effects in concrete ([27], and De) upon return to the compression and tension envelopes
Fig. 3c) and a linear-elastic constitutive model for dowel action (Fig. 4b). Upon each unloading from the compression envelope,
on reinforcing steel bars ([11–13], Fig. 3e) are incorporated to rep- the origin of the tension envelope is shifted based on the unloading
resent the shear resisting mechanisms along cracks. The uniaxial strain from the compression envelope (eun–), and the unloading
constitutive models by Chang and Mander [2] for concrete and strain from the tension envelope (eun+) is re-evaluated so that it
Menegotto and Pinto [22] for reinforcing steel were originally used corresponds to a tension strain ductility equal to a previously-
in development of the FSAM; however, any one of the uniaxial experienced compression strain ductility upon unloading from
models for concrete and steel available in OpenSees can be used the compression envelope, or a previously-experienced tension
in the FSAM formulation implemented. The FSAM is also used to strain ductility, whichever is greater. In terms of modeling general-
define the constitutive behavior of the RC panel elements ized hysteretic behavior, the constitutive model uses smooth
252 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

Fig. 4. Uniaxial material model ConcreteCM: (a) Compression and tension envelope curves, and (b) hysteretic parameters.

connecting curves (with slope continuity) for unloading and the hysteretic stress-strain behavior of concrete. The effect of this
reloading between the compression and tension envelopes, as well parameter on a sample hysteretic response of ConcreteCM material
as for partial unloading and reloading between the connecting model is presented in Fig. 5b. This allows control of the level of
curves. pinching in the lateral load-displacement behavior of a RC mem-
The original formulation of the constitutive model by Chang and ber, as illustrated by Kolozvari et al. [11].
Mander [2], incorporating modifications by Orakcal [24] to remedy
minor numerical instabilities (see also [11]), is implemented in 2.5. Uniaxial constitutive model for reinforcing steel (SteelMPF)
OpenSees as uniaxialMaterial ConcreteCM. The newly-
implemented ConcreteCM model incorporates the smooth unload- The uniaxial hysteretic constitutive model for reinforcing steel
ing/reloading curves defined in the original formulation of the proposed by Menegotto and Pinto [22], as extended by Filippou
Chang and Mander [2] model, as opposed to the existing Con- et al. [5] to include isotropic strain hardening effects, is imple-
crete07 model, which also an adaptation of the Chang and Mander mented in OpenSees as uniaxialMaterial SteelMPF, for simulating
[2] model in OpenSees, but with simplified multi-linear unloading the hysteretic stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel bars.
and reloading rules. To illustrate the differences between the Although similar material model formulations for reinforcing steel
newly-implemented ConcreteCM and the existing Concrete07, a are already available in OpenSees (e.g., Steel02), the formulation of
representative hysteretic response comparison obtained using SteelMPF brings several distinctive features compared to the exist-
the two models is presented in Fig. 5a. In addition to user- ing models. For example, the implemented SteelMPF model allows
defined envelope parameters for defining the compression and definition of different yield stresses and strain hardening ratios for
tension envelopes of the constitutive model, an optional input compression and tension, which allows consideration of tension
parameter named as gap (with a value 0 or 1) is introduced in stiffening effects on only the tensile stress-strain behavior of rein-
the ConcreteCM model to allow control over the plastic stiffness forcing bars embedded in concrete. As well, the model allows cal-
upon unloading from the tension envelope (Epl+), which influences ibration of isotropic strain hardening parameters independently
the intensity of gap closure (more gradual versus less gradual) in for compression and tension. Furthermore, SteelMPF considers

Fig. 5. Implemented concrete material model ConcreteCM: (a) Cyclic behavior compared with Concrete07 and (b) gap closure behavior.
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 253

degradation of the cyclic curvature parameter R for strain reversals using the existing Steel02 model in OpenSees show that when
in both pre- and post- yielding regions of the hysteretic reloading occurs after partial (small-amplitude) unloading in a
stress-strain behavior, which may provide more accurate predic- RC model element (possibly caused by dynamic loading or stress
tions of the yield capacity of RC structural members under cyclic re-distribution due to concrete cracking or local crushing), the
loading (discussed in Section 3.2), whereas Steel02 considers the Menegotto and Pinto [22] formulation tends to produce artificial
cyclic curvature degradation after formation of post-yield strains stress overshooting in the cyclic stress-strain behavior of reinforc-
only. Fig. 6a compares strain-stress responses obtained using ing steel. This overshooting effect is not behavioral and causes non-
SteelMPF and Steel02 for a strain history that includes two strain physical hardening in the stress-strain behavior upon reloading
reversals before yielding, calculated at a boundary element at the after partial unloading, which has also been acknowledged by
bottom of a slender RC wall specimen (RW2, [38], Fig. 8a) sub- Filippou et al. [5]. This anomaly, which is illustrated in Fig. 6b for
jected to reversed-cyclic lateral loading. Details on the wall speci- the Steel02 model, leads to overestimation of steel stresses pre-
men, the analytical wall model used, and analysis results are dicted by Steel02 upon return from partial unloading and produces
presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. It can be observed from the a stress-strain curve that does not represent the physical constitu-
Fig. 6a that the difference between the two radii of the curved tran- tive behavior of reinforcing steel. The overshooting effect observed
sitions between the elastic and post-yield stress-strain responses is in Steel02 has been remedied in SteelMPF via manipulating the
significant, which can considerably influence the predictions of the model formulation so that reloading behavior after partial unload-
overall wall load-deformation behavior as illustrated in Fig. 9b ing cannot overshoot the previous loading loop in the cyclic stress-
(Section 3.3). Furthermore, strain-stress relationships obtained strain behavior. Comparison of strain-stress relationships obtained

Fig. 6. Steel02 versus SteelMPF: (a) Cyclic degradation of curvature parameter R, and (b) stress overshooting upon strain unloading/reloading.

Fig. 7. Model discretization for specimens (a) 2CLH18 [15] and (b) H/D(3)-T/M(0.0)/1.32% [36].
254 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

Fig. 8. Model discretization for specimens (a) RW2 [38] and (b) B8 [23].

Fig. 9. Comparison of load-displacement responses for specimen RW2 [38]: (a) Experimental versus analytical results obtained using ConcreteCM and SteelMPF and (b)
Analytical results obtained using Concrete02, Concrete07, Steel02 and SteelMPF.

using the newly-implemented SteelMPF and the existing Steel02 a wide range of characteristics, including various shear-span-to-
models, for a strain history that includes low-amplitude unloading depth ratios (1.5, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.2), horizontal and vertical reinforc-
followed by reloading, is presented in Fig. 6b. ing ratios (low to moderate), axial load levels (from 0 to 7% of Agf0 c)
and failure modes (flexural, shear and combined shear/flexure fail-
3. Experimental validation of implemented models ure). All specimens were tested under constant axial load and a
reversed-cyclic lateral displacement history applied at the top.
3.1. Test specimens used for model validation Important properties of column and wall specimens considered
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
The MVLEM and SFI-MVLEM models implemented in OpenSees
were used to predict the behavior of two RC column specimens, 3.2. Model calibration
a bridge column specimen with a circular cross-section [36] and
a rectangular building column [15], as well as four RC wall speci- Analytical models of the column and wall specimens were gen-
mens [23,38,39] selected from the literature. The column and wall erated in OpenSees using the MVLEM and SFI-MVLEM model ele-
specimens selected for the validation study are characterized with ments. The specimens were discretized with a number of model
Table 1
Properties of column specimens.

Spec. Size H Span to depth Vertical reinf. qv Horiz. reinf. qh fy f0 c N N/Agf0 c Failure mode
mm mm ratio (%) (%) MPa MPa kN
(in) (in) (ksi) (ksi) (kips)
1. / 635 1829 3.0 12 D25.4 mm 2.10 D12.7 mm@70 mm 1.32 450.9 25.78 592 0.070 Flex.
(/ 24) (72) (12 #8) (#4@2.75 in.) (65.4) (3.74) (1 3 3)
2. 457  457 2946 3.2 8 D25.4 mm 1.94 D9.5 mm@457 mm 0.07 330.9 33.09 503 0.073 Flex/Sh
(18  18) (1 1 6) (8 #8) (#3@18 in.) (48.0) (4.80) (1 1 3)

K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

Table 2
Properties of wall specimens.

Spec. L H t H/L Boundary reinf. qbound. Web reinf. qweb fy f0 c N N/Agf0 c Failure modea
mm mm mm (%) (%) MPa MPa kN
(in) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (ksi) (kips)
RW2 1219 3658 102 3.00 8 D9.5 mm 2.93 D6.35 mm@190 mm 0.33 430.0 42.81 381.6 0.072 CB
(48) (1 4 4) (4) (8 #3) (#2@7.5 in.) (62.4) (6.21) (85.8)
B8 1905 4470 Web: 2.34 12 D19 mm 3.67 Horizontal: h: 1.38 447.5 47.23 1192.6 0.089 WC
(75) (1 7 6) 102 (4) (12 #6) D9.5 mm@102 mm v: 0.29 (64.9) (6.85) (268.1)
Bound: (#3@4 in.)
305 (12) Vertical:
D6.35 mm@229 mm
(#2@9 in.)
RW-A20-P10-S63 1219 2438 152 2.00 4 D12.7 mm + 4 D19 mm 6.06 D9.5 mm@127 mm 0.61 474.6 48.61 659.7 0.073 CB
(48) (96) (6) (4 #4 + 4 #6) (#3@5 in.) (68.8) (7.05) (148.3)
RW-A15-P10-S78 1219 1829 152 1.50 4 D19 mm + 4 D15.9 mm|(4 #6 + 4 #5) 7.11 D9.5 mm@152 mm 0.73 474.6 55.78 663.2 0.064 DC
(48) (72) (6) (#3@6 in.) (68.8) (8.09) (149.1)
CB = Crushing/buckling in boundary, WC = Web crushing, DC = Diagonal compression.

256 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

elements along the specimen height (n) and a number of RC macro- mented stress–strain relationships for concrete and reinforcing
fibers along the specimen cross-section (m), based on the specimen steel are suitable for obtaining accurate global response predic-
geometry and the configuration of vertical reinforcement. Fig. 7 tions. The lateral capacity of the wall is predicted very closely for
illustrates discretization of the models for the column specimens, most lateral drift levels. The underestimation of the wall capacity
with seven elements along the height (n = 7) and seven macro- at intermediate drift levels in the negative loading direction (e.g.,
fibers (m = 7) across the cross-section of the rectangular column 0.5–1.5% drift) can be attributed to the inability of the yield asymp-
specimen 2CLH18 ([15]; Fig. 7a), and with six elements along the tote in the stress–strain model for steel in tension to represent the
height (n = 6) and five macro-fibers (m = 5) for the circular column curved strain-hardening region observed in the stress–strain tests
specimen H/D(3)-T/M(0.0)/1.32% ([36]; Fig. 7b). Model discretiza- for the #3 longitudinal reinforcing bars, as well as uncertainties in
tion for the wall specimens was conducted such that the wall calibration of the cyclic parameters governing the implemented
cross-section is represented with a number of approximately steel stress–strain model (R0, a1, and a2 of SteelMPF) and the
equal-width panel macro-fibers, where one RC panel is assigned parameters associated with concrete tensile strength (f t and et of
to each wall boundary and the remaining panels are used for the ConcreteCM).
web, while model element height is chosen such that aspect ratio Furthermore, Fig. 9b compares MVLEM predictions using exist-
of the panel macro-fibers is approximately 1.0, as illustrated in ing material models in OpenSees for concrete and steel, in order to
Fig. 8. Discretization of the model for the rectangular wall speci- compare the capabilities of the newly-implemented material mod-
men RW2 [38], with six macro-fibers along wall length (m = 6) els to the existing ones. The existing concrete models considered
and fifteen model elements along the wall height (n = 15) is shown in the comparisons include the commonly used stress-strain rela-
in Fig. 8a, whereas model discretization for the barbell-shaped wall tionship proposed by Yassin [45] (Conrete02), which is character-
specimen B8 [23], with six macro-fibers along the wall length (m = ized with the compression envelope by Kent and Park [8], multi-
6) and thirteen model elements along the wall height (n = 13), is linear unloading/reloading relationships, a linear tension stiffening
presented in Fig. 8b. The reinforcement ratio in vertical and hori- branch and sudden gap closure, as well as a simplified version of
zontal directions for each macro-fiber (RC panel) was obtained the Chang and Mander model ([2], Concrete07) with multi-linear
based on the areas of corresponding reinforcing bars and concrete unloading/reloading branches (Fig. 5a). The existing material
within the macro-fiber. For the circular column specimen, the rein- model considered for reinforcing steel is the existing Menegotto
forcement ratio in the horizontal direction was obtained based on and Pinto [22] formulation (Steel02, Fig. 6). It can be observed from
the area of transverse reinforcement defined for each macro-fiber Fig. 9b that using Steel02 results in overprediction of the yield
multiplied by the cosine of the angle between the orientation of capacity of the wall during the loading first cycle to yield displace-
the transverse reinforcement in that particular macro-fiber and ment, compared to both model results obtained using SteelMPF
the direction of loading (e.g., E-W, Fig. 7b). and experimental results, because the curvature parameter R in
The parameters of the uniaxial material models for concrete and the Steel02 model formulation does not degrade during loading
reinforcing steel were calibrated to match as-tested material prop- cycles prior to yielding of the boundary reinforcement, as also
erties (where available), or using empirical relationships presented illustrated in Fig. 6a. Fig. 9b further shows that when Concrete02
in the literature, as described by Orakcal and Wallace [25]. At con- is used in the analysis, the pinching characteristics of the response
fined regions (e.g., confined wall boundaries), the monotonic are significantly overestimated due to simplified and abrupt gap
envelope of the compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete closure behavior implemented in the Concrete02 formulation. In
was calibrated using the confinement model proposed by Mander addition, when Concrete07 is used to simulate the stress–strain
et al. [16], based on the amount and configuration of the transverse behavior of concrete, the overall lateral load capacity of the wall
reinforcement provided. A linear-elastic shear force-deformation is underestimated by approximately 10%, and shape of the hys-
relationship, with effective shear stiffness equal to 0.5GAg (cracked teretic loops is characterized with almost no pinching due to the
shear stiffness commonly used in practice) was used for calibration simplified unloading/reloading rules implemented in the Con-
of the shear spring in the MVLEM. In the SFI-MVLEM, there is no crete07 adaptation of the Chang and Mander [2] model. Overall,
need to define a shear stiffness or a shear backbone relation, since material models available in OpenSees for concrete and reinforc-
shear behavior of the model is coupled with the stress-strain ing steel incorporate shortcomings that can lead to overestimation
behavior of concrete (as well as shear aggregate interlock along of yield capacity and overestimation or underestimation of the
cracks and dowel action on the reinforcement) at the model ele- hysteretic energy dissipation capacity of RC walls. The material
ment level. Constant axial load and cyclic lateral displacement his- models implemented in OpenSees for concrete (ConcreteCM) and
tory matching test conditions were applied at the top node of the steel (SteelMPF) as part of this research study provide the opportu-
analytical models, and displacement-controlled analysis was per- nity to obtain improved predictions of the hysteretic lateral load –
formed to simulate the cyclic response of test specimens. deformation responses of RC members subjected to reversed cyclic
3.3. Comparison of MVLEM predictions with experimental data

3.3.1. Response predictions for a flexure-controlled wall and sensitivity 3.3.2. Response predictions for elements with shear-flexure interaction
to material models behavior
Fig. 9a compares the lateral load versus top displacement Comparison of MVLEM predictions with experimentally-
responses measured during the test and predicted by the MVLEM, measured responses for a rectangular column specimen 2CLH18
using the newly-implemented material models for concrete (Con- [15] and a wall specimen RW-A15-P10-S78 [39] are presented in
creteCM) and reinforcing steel (SteelMPF). As shown in the figure, Fig. 10. The responses of these specimens are also simulated with
the analytical model captures, reasonably well, the experimentally the widely-used displacement-based beam-column element (DB-
measured lateral load versus top displacement response of the BC, [37]) model available in OpenSees, which is conceptually sim-
slender wall specimen RW2 [38], which showed flexure- ilar to the MVLEM as discussed in Section 2.1, and analysis results
dominated behavior. Cyclic properties of the response, including are compared with test data in Fig. 11. The DB-BC element model
stiffness degradation, hysteretic shape, plastic (residual) displace- was calibrated similarly to the MVLEM in terms of geometric dis-
ments, and pinching behavior are reasonably well represented in cretization and material properties, and 2 (or 4) integration points
the analytical results; therefore, cyclic characteristics of the imple- per model element were used for the analyses. Column specimen
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 257

Fig. 10. Experimental versus MVLEM results for load-displacement responses of specimens: (a) 2CLH18 [15] and (b) RW-A15-P10-S78 [39].

Fig. 11. Experimental versus DB-BC model results for load-displacement responses of specimens: (a) 2CLH18 [15] and (b) RW-A15-P10-S78 [39].

2CLH18 exhibited predominantly flexural behavior (with flexural the DB-BC model for the column and the wall specimen are very
deformations comprising about 80% of total lateral displacement, similar to the results obtained using the MVLEM, in terms of stiff-
where shear and other deformations contributed by approximately ness, capacity, and hysteretic shape of the response, which demon-
20%) until shear-flexure failure occurred at a displacement ductil- strates the very similar response prediction capabilities of the two
ity level of 5.1. The behavior of wall specimen RW-A15-P10-S78 modeling approaches. Therefore, modeling approaches where flex-
was characterized with significant contribution of nonlinear shear ural and shear responses are assumed uncoupled, such as the
deformations (approximately 40%) to total lateral displacement MVLEM and DB-BC element, or any other commonly used fiber-
and overall shear-flexure interaction behavior. Results presented based model formulation (e.g., shear wall element in Perform 3D
in Fig. 10 show that the MVLEM is not capable of accurately simu- [29]), lack the ability to accurately represent the behavior of RC
lating the load-displacement response of the column and the wall components where shear deformations are substantial and interac-
specimens investigated, since their behavior is influenced by both tion between shear and flexural responses occurs, which is typi-
nonlinear shear and flexural deformations. For both the column cally observed in RC columns and walls with shear-span-to-
and the wall specimen, the initial stiffness, unloading/reloading depth ratios between approximately 1.0 and 3.0. As presented in
stiffness values, yield strength, and hysteretic energy dissipation the following section, the SFI-MLVEM model implemented in Open-
capacity are considerably overestimated by the MVLEM. Fig. 11 fur- Sees as part of this study overcomes this significant shortcoming of
ther reveals that the load–displacement responses obtained using uncoupled modeling approaches.
258 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

3.4. Comparison of SFI-MVLEM predictions with experimental data 7.5% and 10%), reinforcement configurations, and cross section
geometries (rectangular, barbell). Test results were compared to
The SFI-MLVEM also was calibrated and validated for the RC col- model predictions in terms of lateral load versus top displacement
umn and wall specimens described in Section 3.1. The following responses for all specimens, as well as lateral load versus shear and
sections provide details on validation of the implemented SFI mod- flexural deformation components of top displacement and distri-
eling approach against experimental data at both global and local bution of vertical strains at the base of the wall, for the wall spec-
response levels. imens investigated.

3.4.1. Response predictions for reinforced concrete colummns Load-displacement responses. Fig. 13 compares the
Fig. 12 compares the experimentally-measured and experimentally-measured and analytically-predicted lateral load
analytically-predicted load-displacement responses obtained using versus top displacement responses for the four wall specimens
the SFI-MVLEM for the two column specimens considered. It can be considered (RW2, [38]; B8, [23]; RW-A20-P10-S63 and RW-A15-
observed from the figure that the analytical model predicts reason- P10-S78, [39]. It can be observed from the figure that the analytical
ably well the lateral load capacities of the columns at almost all model captures, reasonably well, the lateral load and stiffness char-
drift levels, as well as the hysteretic characteristics of the observed acteristics of all specimens at most of the applied drift levels. Lat-
load-displacement responses including cyclic stiffness degradation eral loads on the specimens are overestimated at drift levels lower
and pinching characteristics. Lateral loads are underestimated by than 0.5% for wall specimens with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0, indi-
approximately 5% at small and intermediate drift levels for Speci- cating a moderate overprediction of lateral stiffness for moderate-
men #2 [36]. Initial stiffness of both column specimens is slightly aspect ratio specimens, whereas for drift levels between 0.5% and
overestimated by the model, whereas unloading stiffness values at 2.0%, analytically-predicted lateral loads are within the ±10% range
increasing drift levels are predicted with reasonable accuracy. of the experimentally-measured values. In addition, hysteretic
Although the overall load-displacement behavior of the specimens characteristics of the response, including stiffness degradation,
is well-predicted by the SFI-MVLEM, strength loss observed in the plastic (residual) displacements, and pinching behavior are well-
experiments due to specific flexural or shear modes of failure represented in the model results for the moderate-aspect ratio wall
(excluding concrete crushing) is not always captured in the analyt- specimens with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0, whereas pinching is
ical results. This shortcoming is mainly associated with the inabil- slightly overestimated for the remaining two relatively slender
ity of the model to simulate certain failure mechanisms such as wall specimens with aspect ratios of 2.6 and 3.0. Similarly to
buckling of reinforcing bars observed in the specimen tested by results obtained for RC columns, significant strength degradation
Shanmugam [36] (since rebar buckling is not implemented in the observed in the tests at large drift levels, caused by buckling of lon-
model formulation) or sliding shear failure along cracks (due to gitudinal boundary reinforcement, or sliding shear failure adjacent
the simplicity of the constitutive relationships implemented in to the wall-foundation interface (observed during testing of speci-
the model formulation to represent shear stress transfer mecha- men RW-A15-P10-S78), were not captured by the analytical model
nisms across the cracks). These model limitations may lead to (since present model formulation does not incorporate these fail-
overestimation of the drift capacity of columns experiencing such ure mechanisms), resulting in overestimation of wall drift capacity.
failure modes. Future studies will focus on model improvements
to address these issues. Local responses. Comparisons of the experimentally-
measured and analytically-predicted flexural and shear deforma-
3.4.2. Response predictions for reinforced concrete walls tion components of the lateral load versus top displacement
The SFI-MLVEM implemented in OpenSees also was used to pre- response of specimen RW-A15-P10-S78 are presented in Fig. 14.
dict the response of four representative wall specimens (Table 2), The analytical model successfully captures the nonlinear flexural
with varying aspect ratios (1.5, 2.0, 2.6, 3.0), axial load levels (0%, and shear deformations and their coupling throughout the entire

Fig. 12. Experimental versus SFI-MVLEM results for load-displacement responses of specimens: (a) 2CLH18 [15] and (b) H/D(3)-T/M(0.0)/1.32% [36].
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 259

Fig. 13. Experimental versus SFI-MVLEM results for load-displacement response of specimens: (a) RW2 [38], (b) B8 [23], (c) RW-A20-P10-S63 [39] and (d) RW-A15-P10-S78

cyclic loading history of the wall. As revealed in both experimental A representative comparison between experimentally-
and analytical results, flexural and shear yielding occur almost measured and analytically-predicted profiles of vertical strains
simultaneously at a lateral load level of approximately 800 kN. (along wall length) at the bottom of wall specimen RW-A20-P10-
As well, the model successfully reproduces the shapes of the load S63, corresponding to lateral drift levels in the positive loading
versus flexural and shear displacement responses, with flexural direction of 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0%, are presented in Fig. 15. Similar
response characterized by no pinching or low-level pinching, and correlation between model and test results was observed for other
shear behavior characterized by a highly pinched load- drift levels as well as drifts in the negative loading direction. The
deformation response. While the analytical model reasonably cap- experimentally-measured average vertical strains in concrete are
tures the initial and cyclic flexural stiffness of the wall at all drift obtained from four vertical LVDTs located at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 33.0
levels, shear stiffness is overestimated at drift levels lower than cm (13 in.), 88.9 cm (35 in.), and 11.8 cm (44 in.) along the length
0.5%. The magnitudes of nonlinear flexural and shear deformation of the wall specimen, over an LVDT gauge length of 35.6 cm (14
components predicted by the model generally match the in.) (from 2 in. to 16 in. height from the wall base); whereas the
experimentally-measured values throughout the loading history. analytically-predicted strain profiles are obtained using the aver-
However, as depicted in Fig. 14b, the analytical model underesti- age vertical strains in along the bottommost SFI-MVLEM element
mates the experimentally-measured shear deformations during of 30.5 cm (12 in.) length.
the second loading cycle to 3.0% drift in both directions, because It can be observed from Fig. 15 that the plane-sections-remain-
of its inability to capture the sliding shear failure adjacent to the plane assumption incorporated analytical model formulation rea-
wall-foundation interface, which was also the reason for lateral sonably approximates the experimentally-measured vertical strain
strength degradation in the experimentally-observed behavior. profiles at drift levels of 0.5% and 1.0%. At these drift levels, both
260 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

Fig. 14. Experimental versus SFI-MVLEM results for load-deformation responses of specimen RW-A15-P10-S78 [39]: (a) flexure and (b) shear.

Fig. 15. Experimental versus SFI-MVLEM results for vertical strain profiles at wall base for specimen RW-A20-P10-S63 [39].

tensile and compressive strains at wall boundaries are predicted reinforced concrete structural walls and columns under cyclic
with maximum 15% deviation from test results. However, at the loading. Five new classes were added to existing OpenSees library
drift level of 2.0%, the experimentally-observed strain relaxation of model elements and materials, including: (1) the Multiple-Verti
at the wall boundary in tension is not represented in the model cal-Line-Element-Model (MVLEM) with uncoupled axial/flexural
results. The model generally overestimates tensile strains at the and shear responses, (2) the Shear-Flexure-Interaction Multiple-V
wall boundaries at large drift levels, due to its plane-sections- ertical-Line-Element-Model (SFI-MVLEM), which considers interac-
remain plane assumption. However, as also observed in Fig. 15, tion between nonlinear axial/flexural and shear responses, (3) the
the model provides reasonable predictions of the compressive Fixed-Strut-Angle-Model (FSAM), which is a plane-stress constitu-
strains (overestimated by approximately 10%) and the depth of tive model for RC panel (membrane) elements, (4) an improved
the neutral axis on the wall cross-section. uniaxial material model for concrete (ConcreteCM), and (5) an
improved uniaxial material model for reinforcing steel (SteelMPF).
Descriptions of the implemented model formulations are provided,
4. Summary and conclusions with particular emphasis on distinguishing features between the
newly-implemented models and the existing models in OpenSees.
This paper provides information on analytical models imple- Additional information on the models and user manuals for the
mented by the authors into the widely-used and open-source com- new OpenSees classes can also be found on the OpenSees Wiki
putational platform OpenSees, for simulating the response of web page.
K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262 261

The analytical models implemented into OpenSees were vali- [3] Du K, Sun J, Xu W. Evaluation of section and fiber integration points in fiber
model. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering,
dated against experimental results obtained from tests on two
Lisbon, Portugal.
reinforced concrete columns with circular and rectangular cross [4] Elwood KJ. Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load collapse
sections that experienced flexural and shear-flexural failures, of reinforced concrete frames [PhD Dissertation]. Berkeley: University of
respectively, as well as four reinforced concrete wall specimens California; 2002. p. 419.
[5] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
characterized with a range of characteristics including aspect behavior of reinforced concrete joints Report EERC 83-
ratios (1.5, 2.0. 2.4, 3.0), axial loads (between 0.0 and 0.10Agf0 c) 19. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
and failure mechanisms (flexural, web-crushing, diagonal com- California; 1983.
[6] Fischinger M, Rejec K, Isakovic T. Modeling inelastic shear response of RC walls.
pression). Comparisons between experimentally-measured and In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon,
analytically-predicted load-displacement responses reveal that Portugal.
both the MVLEM and the SFI-MVLEM models are capable of captur- [7] Jiang H, Kurama Y. Analytical modeling of medium-rise reinforced concrete
shear walls. ACI Struct J 2010;107(4):400–10.
ing, with reasonable accuracy, the cyclic load-displacement [8] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div, ASCE
response attributes of slender (flexure-dominated) wall specimens, 1971;97(ST7):1969–90.
including their lateral load capacity, lateral stiffness, cyclic stiffness [9] Kolozvari K. Analytical modeling of cyclic shear-flexure interaction in
reinforced concrete structural walls PhD Dissertation. Los
degradation, and pinching characteristics. However, for the Angeles: University of California; 2013.
moderate-aspect-ratio walls considered, where interaction [10] Kolozvari K, Wallace JW. Practical nonlinear modeling of reinforced concrete
between shear and flexural responses is pronounced, only the structural walls. ASCE Struct J 2016;142(12). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
SFI-MVLEM can capture the load-displacement behavior accurately,
[11] Kolozvari K, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Shear-flexure interaction modeling for
and the MVLEM tends to over-predict the lateral stiffness and lat- reinforced concrete structural walls and columns under cyclic loading
eral load capacity of such walls. In addition, it has been observed Technical Report PEER 2015/12. Berkeley (USA): Pacific Earthquake
that newly implemented material models for concrete (Con- Engineering Research Institute; 2015.
[12] Kolozvari K, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure
creteCM) and steel (SteelMPF) provide improved predictions of interaction in reinforced concrete structural walls. I: theory. ASCE J Struct
the wall load-deformation behavior in terms of yield capacity, cyc- Eng 2015;141(5):04014135.
lic stiffness degradation and pinching characteristics comparing to [13] Kolozvari K, Tran T, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure
interaction in reinforced concrete structural walls. II: experimental validation.
results obtained using existing OpenSees material models. A major ASCE J Struct Eng 2015;141(5):04014136.
shortcoming of the MVLEM and SFI-MVLEM model formulations, [14] Lu XZ, Xie LL, Guan H, Huang YL, Lu X. A shear wall element for nonlinear
identified based on the response comparisons presented, is the seismic analysis of super-tall buildings using OpenSees. Finite Elem Anal Des
inability of the models to capture strength degradation observed [15] Lynn CA, Moehle PJ, Mahin AS, Holmes TW. Seismic evaluation of
in the experimental results due to failure modes associated with existing reinforced concrete building columns. Earthq Spectra 1996;12
buckling (or fracture) of reinforcing steel bars, sliding shear failure (4):715–39.
[16] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
along cracks, or lateral instability of the compression boundary, concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
since the implemented models do not incorporate these failure [17] Mansour MY, Hsu TC, Lee JY. Pinching effect in hysteretic loops of R/C shear
mechanisms in their formulation. elements. ACI Struct J 2002;205:293–321.
[18] Massone LM, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling flexural/shear interaction in RC
Future research can focus on applying the models implemented
walls, ACI-SP-236, deformation capacity and shear strength of reinforced
in this study to conduct improved seismic response simulation concrete members under cyclic loadings. Farmington Hills (MI): American
studies on building or bridge components or systems, using Open- Concrete Institute; 2006. p. 127–50 [Paper 7].
Sees. Additional studies will focus on development and implemen- [19] Massone LM, Wallace JW. Load – deformation responses of slender reinforced
concrete walls. ACI Struct J 2004;101(1):103–13.
tation of more robust constitutive models to represent shear [20] Massone LM, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of squat structural walls
transfer mechanisms along cracks, development and implementa- controlled by shear. ACI Struct J 2009;106(5):646–55.
tion of rebar buckling and fracture behavior into the constitutive [21] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH, Jeremic B. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake
relationship for reinforcing steel, and constitutive modeling of the Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2000.
sliding shear mechanism above the base of a wall, all of which [22] Menegotto M, Pinto E. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced
would improve model capabilities towards capturing failure modes concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior
of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: Proceedings, IABSE
associated with these mechanisms. Finally, the implemented con- symposium, Lisbon, Portugal.
stitutive models can be used in other formulations, such as develop- [23] Oesterle R, Aristizabal-Ochoa J, Fiorato A, Russel H, Corley W. Earthquake
ment of a robust three-dimensional finite-element modeling resistant structural walls-tests of isolated walls: phase II. Skokie (IL): Portland
Cement Association; 1979. p. 327.
approach for simulating the responses of walls with non- [24] Orakcal K. Nonlinear modeling and analysis of slender reinforced concrete
rectangular cross sections under bi-directional lateral loading. walls [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of California Los Angeles; 2004.
[25] Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls -
experimental verification. ACI Struct J 2006;103(2):196–206.
Acknowledgments [26] Orakcal K, Conte JP, Wallace JW. Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete
structural walls - model attributes. ACI Struct J 2004;101(5):688–98.
[27] Orakcal K, Massone LM, Ulugtekin D. Constitutive modeling of reinforced
This work was supported by the State of California’s Transporta- concrete panel behavior under cyclic loading. In: Proceedings, 15th world
tion Division - Earthquake Risk Reduction Fund through the Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Transportation [28] Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI, Schoettler M, Kim G. Nonlinear cyclic truss model
for reinforced concrete walls. ACI Struct J 2012;109(2):205–14.
Systems Research Program and by the National Science Foundation
[29] Perform 3D, 3D performance based design software. Computers and Structures
under Grants CMMI-0825347 and CMMI-1208192. Any opinions, Inc.
findings, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors [30] Petrangeli M, Pinto PE, Ciampi V. Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of
RC structures. I: theory. ASCE J Eng Mech 1999;125(9):994–1001.
and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.
[31] Priestley MJN, Benzoni G. Seismic performance of circular columns with low
longitudinal reinforcement ratios. ACI Struct J 1996;93(4):474–85.
[32] Pristley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New
References York (NY): John Wiley; 1996.
[33] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated
[1] Applied Technology Council. PEER/ATC 72–1: modeling and acceptance criteria seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1989;86(1):3–12.
for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings; 2010. [34] Sayre B. Performance evaluation of steel reinforced shear walls MS Thesis. Los
[2] Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge Angeles: University of California; 2003.
columns: Part I - Evaluation of seismic capacity NCEER Technical Report No. [35] Seismostruct. Seismosoft Inc. – Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions.
NCEER-94-0006. Buffalo (NY): State University of New York; 1994.
262 K. Kolozvari et al. / Computers and Structures 196 (2018) 246–262

[36] Shanmugam SP. Seismic behavior of circular reinforced concrete bridge [41] Ulugtekin D. Analytical modeling of reinforced concrete panel elements under
columns under combined loading including torsion PhD reversed cyclic loadings M.S. Thesis. Turkey: Bogazici University, Istanbul;
Dissertation. Missouri University of Science and Technology; 2009. 2010.
[37] Taucer FF, Spacone E, Filippou FC. A fiber beam-column element for seismic [42] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Compression response of cracked reinforced concrete.
response analysis of reinforced concrete structures Rep. No. UCB/EERC-91/ ASCE J Struct Eng 1993;83(2):219–31.
17. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of [43] Vulcano A, Bertero VV, Colotti V. Analytical modeling of RC structural walls.
Engineering, University of California; 1991. Proceedings, 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto,
[38] Thomsen JH, Wallace JW. Displacement-Based Design of Reinforced Concrete Japan, vol. 6. p. 41–6.
Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation of Walls with Rectangular and [44] Xu SY, Zhang J. Hysteretic shear-flexure interaction model of reinforced
T-Shaped Cross-Sections Report No. CU/CEE-95/06. Postdam (New concrete columns for seismic response assessment of bridges. Earthquake Eng
York): Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University; 1995. Struct Dynam 2010;40(3):315–37.
[39] Tran TA, Wallace JW. Cyclic testing of moderate-aspect-ratio reinforced [45] Yassin MHM. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under
concrete structural walls. ACI Struct J 2015;112(6):653–65. monotonic and cyclic loads PhD Dissertation. Berkeley: University of
[40] Tsai WT. Uniaxial compressional stress-strain relation of concrete. ASCE J California; 1994.
Struct Eng 1988;114(9):2133–6.

View publication stats